County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.

Case Documents:

Federal Court to Hear Arguments on February 15 on Whether to Remand. On December 22, 2017, the defendants filed papers opposing the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the actions to California state court. Their opposition papers argued that the plaintiffs’ claims could only arise under federal common law, that they raised substantial and disputed federal issues, that they were completely preempted by federal law, and that the claims were based on the defendants’ actions on federal lands and at the direction of the federal government or were removal under the bankruptcy removal statute. The defendants also made an alternative argument that even if plaintiffs were correct that state law applied to global climate change “of its own force,” the complaints still presented removable federal questions because federal law determined which state law should apply and when state law should apply. A hearing was scheduled for February 15, 2018 on the remand motion.

Chevron Filed Third-Party Complaint Against Statoil in San Mateo and Imperial Beach Climate Change Lawsuits. On December 15, 2017, the Chevron defendants in the climate change lawsuits brought by the County of San Mateo and the City of Imperial Beach filed a third-party claim for indemnity and contribution against Statoil ASA (Statoil), an energy company for which the majority stakeholder is the Norwegian State. Statoil was originally a defendant in the cases, but the plaintiffs dismissed the complaint as to Statoil without prejudice in July 2017. The Chevron defendants asserted that City and County’s underlying claims against them were without merit but that if the claims were found to have merit, the plaintiffs’ allegations “would implicate Statoil as a party responsible for a portion of the injuries and damages Plaintiffs claim on the same basis as they would implicate the Chevron Parties and the other named Defendants.”

The Executive Committee for the Northern District of California denied the motion by defendants in climate change cases brought by the Oakland and San Francisco city attorneys to relate those two cases to the pending cases brought by San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach.

Defendants Removed Cases to Federal Court. Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (together, Chevron) removed all three actions filed by two California counties and one city against fossil fuel companies to the federal district court for the Northern District of California. Chevron said all other defendants joined in or had consented to the notice of removal. Chevron also said the defendants would be moving “at the appropriate time” to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. Chevron asserted that though the complaint nominally asserted state law claims, it should be heard in a federal forum because there was federal question jurisdiction. Citing the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron argued that “[r]eflecting the uniquely federal interests posed by greenhouse gas claims like these,” the Ninth Circuit had recognized “that causes of action of the types asserted here are governed by federal common law, not state law.” Chevron also said removal was also authorized because the action “necessarily raises disputed and substantial federal questions that a federal forum may entertain without disturbing a congressionally approved balance of responsibilities between the federal and state judiciaries”; because the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution completely preempted the plaintiffs’ claims; because the action arose under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA); because a causal nexus existed between the alleged actions taken by the defendants pursuant to a federal officer’s directions and the plaintiffs’ claims and because the defendants could assert colorable federal defenses; because the claims were based on alleged injuries to or conduct on federal enclaves; and because the state law claims were related to bankruptcy cases.

In re Peabody Energy Corp.

Docket number(s): 16-42529-399

Court/Admin Entity: Bankr. E.D. Mo.

Case Documents:

California Counties and City Appealed Bankruptcy Court Order Enjoining Climate Change Lawsuits Against Peabody Energy. San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach appealed the order of a federal bankruptcy court in Missouri enjoining them from pursuing their climate change lawsuits against the coal company Peabody Energy Corporation.

Plaintiffs enjoined from prosecuting causes of action against Peabody and ordered to dismiss causes of action with prejudice.

Bankruptcy Court Said California City and Counties Could Not Sue Coal Company for Climate Change Impacts. A federal bankruptcy court in Missouri enjoined San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach (the plaintiffs) from pursuing their climate change lawsuits against Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody). The plaintiffs alleged that Peabody (and a number of other fossil fuel companies) caused greenhouse gas emissions that resulted in sea level rise and damage to their property. Peabody, a coal company, filed for bankruptcy in April 2016 and emerged from bankruptcy under a plan that became effective on April 3, 2017. As an initial matter, the bankruptcy court said the plaintiffs had not established any basis for a claim because the complaints’ only Peabody-specific allegations were that Peabody had exported coal from terminals or ports in several California counties and was a member of organizations that plaintiffs said denied climate change. The court further concluded, however, that even assuming claims did exist, the claims were pre-bankruptcy petition claims that had been discharged under the bankruptcy plan because the plaintiffs had not filed proofs of claim. The court determined, moreover, that even if the plaintiffs’ claims could be construed as post-effective date claims (i.e., claims concerning conduct and harm after Peabody emerged from bankruptcy), the claims did not fall within the scope of a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other governmental entities to allow continued enforcement of environmental laws related to ongoing mining operations. The bankruptcy court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that one of their nuisance claims did not constitute a “Claim” or “Liability” pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code and Peabody’s bankruptcy plan and therefore could not be discharged and enjoined.

California Counties and City Argued for Keeping Peabody in Climate Case. San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach (the plaintiffs) opposed Peabody Energy Corporation’s (Peabody) motion in federal bankruptcy court in Missouri to enjoin them from pursuing their public nuisance and tort law claims against Peabody. The plaintiffs filed lawsuits in California state court, since removed to federal court, alleging that Peabody and other defendants’ release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere made them responsible for sea level rise and other climate change impacts affecting their communities. Peabody argued that the discharge and injunction contained in its plan for reorganization barred the claims. The plaintiffs argued that multiple carve-outs in the injunction allowed them to proceed with their claims against Peabody. They contended that they were governmental plaintiffs exercising their police powers, that their statutory public nuisance cause of action did not constitute a “claim” subject to the injunction, and that their claims fell within a carve-out for governmental claims brought under “Environmental Law.”

Motion filed by Peabody Energy Corporation for entry of order enforcing the discharge and injunction set forth in the confirmation order and plan.

Peabody Energy Sought Dismissal of California County and City Lawsuits Against Fossil Fuel Companies. On August 28, 2017, Peabody Energy Corporation (Peabody) asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to order San Mateo County, Marin County, and the City of Imperial Beach to dismiss complaints against Peabody filed in California Superior Court in July 2017. The Counties and City’s complaints sought relief from a number of fossil fuel companies, including Peabody, for alleged damage arising from climate change. Peabody—which emerged from bankruptcy in April 2017—argued that the complaints sought to “obliterate” Peabody’s “fresh start” by seeking damages and equitable relief based upon pre-bankruptcy petition conduct. Peabody asserted that the Counties and City’s claims were therefore discharged and enjoined pursuant to Peabody’s reorganization plan and the bankruptcy court’s confirmation order.

County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.

Docket number(s): 17CIV03222

Court/Admin Entity: Cal. Super. Ct.

Case Documents:

California Counties and City Sued Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Change Damages. Three local governments in California (San Mateo County, Marin County, and the City of Imperial Beach) filed separate lawsuits in California Superior Court alleging that fossil fuel companies’ “production, promotion, marketing, and use of fossil fuel products, simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products, and their championing of anti-regulation and anti-science campaigns, actually and proximately caused” injuries to the plaintiffs, including more frequent and more severe flooding and sea level rise that jeopardized infrastructure, beaches, schools, and communities. Their complaints included claims for public nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, private nuisance, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The relief sought by the local governments includes compensatory damages, abatement of the alleged nuisance, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits.

County of Marin v. Chevron Corp.

Docket number(s): 3:17-cv-04935

Court/Admin Entity: N.D. Cal.

Case Documents:

Defendants Removed Cases to Federal Court. Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (together, Chevron) removed all three of the actions to the federal district court for the Northern District of California. Chevron said all other defendants joined in or had consented to the notice of removal. Chevron also said the defendants would be moving “at the appropriate time” to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. Chevron asserted that though the complaint nominally asserted state law claims, it should be heard in a federal forum because there was federal question jurisdiction. Citing the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron argued that “[r]eflecting the uniquely federal interests posed by greenhouse gas claims like these,” the Ninth Circuit had recognized “that causes of action of the types asserted here are governed by federal common law, not state law.” Chevron also said removal was also authorized because the action “necessarily raises disputed and substantial federal questions that a federal forum may entertain without disturbing a congressionally approved balance of responsibilities between the federal and state judiciaries”; because the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution completely preempted the plaintiffs’ claims; because the action arose under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA); because a causal nexus existed between the alleged actions taken by the defendants pursuant to a federal officer’s directions and the plaintiffs’ claims and because the defendants could assert colorable federal defenses; because the claims were based on alleged injuries to or conduct on federal enclaves; and because the state law claims were related to bankruptcy cases.

County of Marin v. Chevron Corp.

Docket number(s): CIV1702586

Court/Admin Entity: Cal. Super. Ct.

Case Documents:

California Counties and City Sued Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Change Damages. Three local governments in California (San Mateo County, Marin County, and the City of Imperial Beach) filed separate lawsuits in California Superior Court alleging that fossil fuel companies’ “production, promotion, marketing, and use of fossil fuel products, simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products, and their championing of anti-regulation and anti-science campaigns, actually and proximately caused” injuries to the plaintiffs, including more frequent and more severe flooding and sea level rise that jeopardized infrastructure, beaches, schools, and communities. Their complaints included claims for public nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, private nuisance, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The relief sought by the local governments includes compensatory damages, abatement of the alleged nuisance, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits.

City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corp.

Docket number(s): 4:17-cv-04934

Court/Admin Entity: N.D. Cal.

Case Documents:

Defendants Removed Cases to Federal Court. Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (together, Chevron) removed all three of the actions to the federal district court for the Northern District of California. Chevron said all other defendants joined in or had consented to the notice of removal. Chevron also said the defendants would be moving “at the appropriate time” to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. Chevron asserted that though the complaint nominally asserted state law claims, it should be heard in a federal forum because there was federal question jurisdiction. Citing the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Chevron argued that “[r]eflecting the uniquely federal interests posed by greenhouse gas claims like these,” the Ninth Circuit had recognized “that causes of action of the types asserted here are governed by federal common law, not state law.” Chevron also said removal was also authorized because the action “necessarily raises disputed and substantial federal questions that a federal forum may entertain without disturbing a congressionally approved balance of responsibilities between the federal and state judiciaries”; because the Clean Air Act and other federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution completely preempted the plaintiffs’ claims; because the action arose under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA); because a causal nexus existed between the alleged actions taken by the defendants pursuant to a federal officer’s directions and the plaintiffs’ claims and because the defendants could assert colorable federal defenses; because the claims were based on alleged injuries to or conduct on federal enclaves; and because the state law claims were related to bankruptcy cases.

City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corp.

Docket number(s): C17-01227

Court/Admin Entity: Cal. Super. Ct.

Case Documents:

California Counties and City Sued Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Change Damages. Three local governments in California (San Mateo County, Marin County, and the City of Imperial Beach) filed separate lawsuits in California Superior Court alleging that fossil fuel companies’ “production, promotion, marketing, and use of fossil fuel products, simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products, and their championing of anti-regulation and anti-science campaigns, actually and proximately caused” injuries to the plaintiffs, including more frequent and more severe flooding and sea level rise that jeopardized infrastructure, beaches, schools, and communities. Their complaints included claims for public nuisance, strict liability for failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, private nuisance, negligence, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. The relief sought by the local governments includes compensatory damages, abatement of the alleged nuisance, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and disgorgement of profits.

These materials are intended to be a useful resource and may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. They are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.